A.G. Gancarski
Snipe sign legislation was first introduced in Duval County in 2010, as part of a bill adding them to the ordinance code. The big snipe sign bill was in 2014, which was described by Councilman John Crescimbeni on Monday in a special subcommittee meeting revisiting the subject, as a “pretty simple bill” that looked at what other communities were doing to thwart the menace.
The bill established a nominal $50 fine for the first offense (though with multiple signs put out, there would be multiple counts of that offense) and went up from there for repeat scofflaws. The “concept of the first offense,” as Councilwoman Lori Boyer stated, revolved around the “first adjudication.”
And to be sure, there are groups of various legitimacy that may have snipe signs. People who lose their cats. Churches having fish fries. Soccer leagues looking for players. Philosophy clubs looking for existentialists. Yet the problem created is by commercial enterprises — buyers and sellers of houses on a cash-only basis, fly-by-night income tax providers, et al — who sully the public right of way with their placards, or (worse still) nail them to telephone poles for the same nefarious purpose.
One goal of the meeting was to discuss mechanisms to tighten enforcement. Someone could have hundreds of signs on the first offense. They are cheap to print and require little initiative to stick in the ground. The return on investment is off the charts.
And there is the ingenuity of the criminal mind to consider.
“As we find new ways to catch them, they’ll find new ways not to be caught,” Crescimbeni said.
And another issue is that of plausible deniability. It is by no means a sure thing that the guy putting out the signs really knows the person whose signs he is putting out. Or at least in a way that can be proved.
As Councilman Doyle Carter said, “If you’ve got one guy putting out signs, he’s not going to rat” on the money man behind the operation.
Mechanisms were discussed to increase penalties across the board (from $50 to $150 for the first offense, with increased fines for repeat offenders), yet there was some thought that for those with one to five signs in their initial adjudication, the penalty for the first five placards could be more nominal.
Still, the concern for what Carter called “the little guy” was unabated.
“I’m against [the proposal] because of yard sale signs. Some people have yard sales because they have to have yard sales,” said the west side Republican.
“Ninety-nine percent come back and take their signs back,” Carter continued. “The bad guys make it bad for the little guy.”
A potential solution?
“In the law enforcement community, they have the responsibility for enforcing [prohibitions against] illegal drug use,” Crescimbeni said. To that end, they “spend a lot of time on people moving ‘large quantities’ rather than people using in their homes.”
Though it seems like a consensus will be reached on boosting penalties, the comments of Carter and Al Ferraro point to a classic urban versus rural divide related to snipe signs.
The refashioned bill will find its way back to the Neighborhood Improvement and Community Enhancement committee next week for more discussion.
